With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

Hurricane Sandy May Turn the Tide on Climate Change

Hurricane Sandy may have blacked out the East Coast, but it has enlightened New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As a result of the storm, he is throwing his weight behind President Obama, who remains committed to addressing climate change.

The mayor’s endorsement is unlikely to sway the election. But it does lend credence to those business-minded folks who say that the federal government must take steps to minimize heat-trapping emissions. To that end, BloombergBloomberg will establish a political fund to allocate money to the like-minded — something he has already been doing, having given $50 million to the Sierra Club.

“Our climate is changing,” writes Mayor Bloomberg, in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be — given this week’s devastation — should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

With that, he goes on to say that President Obama has shown that he cares about the issues. While the president tried to shepherd a cap-and-trade bill through Congress, it has since withered given that body’s political make-up and the country’s economic problems. Still, Bloomberg is praising Obama for increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

The goals going forward, the mayor continues, are not just to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also those tied to acid rain, soot and mercury. President Obama has taken the proper precautions to reduce those pollutants by clamping down on coal-fired power, he says. By contrast, Mitt Romney had favored a cap-and-trade system while he was governor of Massachusetts but he has since changed his mind and has done everything possible to curry favor with coal constituencies.

Responsible leadership, in fact, does not play the political odds — but, instead, takes the scientific bet. Any prudent business person must consider “what if” and construct a variety of models. Environmentalists may be criticized for assuming the “worst case” but the fossil fuel sector is at fault for burying its collective head in the sand: Many jurisdictions hit by natural disaster have wished they had built better levies and had demanded stricter building codes.

In 2011, 14 major weather events occurred costing at least $1 billion each, says the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Sandy alone is expected to run $20 billion. Droughts, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, thunderstorms and wildfires are active and having widespread effects.

But what are the odds that world leaders will take practical steps to head off a possible calamity? On some level, steps are occurring now with the funding and the development of greener technologies. And as those tools mature, prices will come down and their possibilities will be even brighter.

Major insurance companies are also raising awareness. Take Munich ReMunich Re, which assumes risks from primary insurers that don’t want to get bombarded with claims in the event of a huge disaster: It says that North America has experienced a nearly five-fold increase in extreme weather patterns over 30 years. Some have said that this is the face of climate change while others are adamant that it is all part of a natural pattern.

“We must choose where to invest our risk reduction resources, and we must do so wisely, or we will inevitably find ourselves living in a riskier world than we might otherwise,” says Peter Roder, member of the Munich Re Board of Management responsible for North American business, in a recent company publication.

The insurer says that climate change is a culprit that cannot be ignored, affecting the formation and intensity of heat waves, droughts and thunderstorms: In the Gulf of Mexico alone, there’s been a 35 percent increase in the size of storms since 1995. It adds that when “global warming combines with natural weather cycles,” it exacerbates the perils and the insured losses.

At a time when the world is ensconced in poverty and war, however, it has shown that it has little staying power with regard to climate change. Nations are disagreeing on the tactics to curb heat-trapping emissions and the targets that they would be required to meet. Money, of course, is also at the heart of the debate: Who will pay and what economies will be helped or hurt by participating in global protocols.

No doubt, the topic of climate change is contentious and some scientists are unable to make the link between global warming and human activity. But even if one accepts that the phenomenon is less than “urgent” and more like “uncertain,” the world’s leaders cannot slam the door and hope for the best. They must at least be pragmatic and inspire the use of cleaner burning fuels.

At the time of any policy decision, it is impossible to know which scenario will play out. Still, it is imperative to think through all decisions — in effect, to suspend one’s beliefs in an effort to think the unthinkable. Just as boom and bust cycles are inevitable so too are catastrophic events. In business, entire industries once thought to be inevitable have faded. Meantime, social media enterprises as well as internet giants unheard of 20 years ago are now the fabric of society.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

*In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate change once. *Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses. *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations. *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier. *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). So how does melting prove that after millions of years my SUV’s life giving CO2 is now causing it instead of the mighty powers of the cosmos? Clue: Those tropical fossils under the melting ice prove this climate of today has happened millions of times before. Despite “being at the point of no return, maybe” these same scientists have never said any crisis will happen, only might happen. Not one single IPCC warning is without a peppering of “maybes”. Help my house could be on fire maybe? Exaggeration isn’t not a crime, yet.

I agree with your assessment. The way things are politicized and used for personal gain these days, it’s hard to trust anyone anymore with so much conflicting evidence and huge amounts of money on the line. Just like the separation of church and state, a separation of science and state needs to be at least considered to help good evidence float to the top.

Yes, the climate is changing it changes dramatically in a very long cycle, the earth has been hotter than it is now, and it has been far cooler, but it is always changing. it was not SUV’s that ended the last ice age which is a far more dramatic global warming event than scientists are discussing today. We can and should try to pollute less and try to live a more clean lifestyle, but when scientists suggest the production of carbon dioxide should be controlled I ask that they volunteer to do their part please breath in but do not breath out.

Look up the significant hurricanes that hit this area in 1938, 1895. Mass destruction. Board walk in Atlantic City was totally destroyed in 1938.

No “global warming ” for either of those events. Additional storms have hit this area dating back to the 1600′s. Typically 70 to 130 year intervals, just long enough for inhabitants to “ forget”, including the city, state and federal officials. that is why you see TV reporters obtaining comments from 50 to 60 year old residents that ,”Nothing like this has happened here before”.

“In the Gulf of Mexico alone, there’s been a 35 percent increase in the size of storms since 1995.”

Prior to 1960 how was the size of storms measured and recorded?

In the US, the desert southwest was twice covered by an ocean and ice 2 miles thick covered most of the nothern hemisphere. What caused these to disappear if there was no one around to drive SUVs?

We have a warmer than normal winter, it must be climate change. We have a colder than normal wnter, it must be climate change. Drier, wetter, hotter, colder, it must be climate change. The only thing consistent is the arguement “Climate change must be solved through more government regulation.”

You don’t HAVE to believe in this misery to be a good planet lover because the scientists can’t both be saying it “could” be too late now and it JUST “could” be a crisis at the same time. Never has the IPCC said it “WILL” happen, only might and could. Like what could be worse, a come hit? Find me one single IPCC warning that isn’t peppered with maybes. HELP MY PLANET COULD BE POTENCIALLY ON FIRE MAYBE? Oh and Romney says thanks for the votes. Condemning the voter’s children? What were you thinking? REAL planet lovers welcome the good news of scientific exaggeration and science gave us the pesticides that necessitated environmentalism in the first place. They are not gods, just lab coat consultants.

The best experts in the world are working on this issue to help us know what will happen to our climate if continue with fossil fuel burning.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/11/pwc-20121105.html

Since 2000, the global rate of decarbonization has averaged 0.8%; from 2010 to 2011, global carbon intensity fell by just 0.7%. Because of this slow start, global carbon intensity now needs to be cut by an average of 5.1% a year from now to 2050. This required rate of decarbonization has not been seen even in a single year since the mid-20th century when these records began. Keeping to the 2 °C carbon budget will require “unprecedented and sustained” reductions over four decades, according to the PwC analysis. Even to have a reasonable prospect of getting to a 4°C scenario would imply nearly quadrupling the current rate of decarbonization.

Reefer Madness= Climate change Not one single IPCC warning over the last 26 years of studying “effects” not causes, isn’t peppered with “maybes”. Help my house could be on fire maybe? They say we could be at the brink of no return yet the lab coats can’t say it “WILL” happen? And yes, science did give us pesticides as well. Science is not truth, it is politics all the way and the fact that the millions in the global scientific community are not acting like their kids are doomed as well proves they exaggerated. Deny that! *In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate change once. *Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses. *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations. *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier. *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE, lazy copy and paste news editors and obedient journalists, had condemned our kids to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated “crisis” and had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

One quiet little company is starting to build a pilot plant to solve this problem. It converts CO2 into formic acid, that has a real value, and can be done at a profit!!!

Search Mantra Energy, MVTG, and the JV partners they have Lafarge, BC Hydro and Powertech In Canada. The technology was invented by Professor Colin Oloman, now has issued patents world wide, and is set to change the debate on what to do with the CO2 that is causing climate change!!!

The only thing in this article I would take issue with is that we should be inspired to use “cleaner burning fuels”. What about energy sources that don’t use fuel at all?!? They have proven themselves over the last 20 years, and the only barriers to massive deployment are political.

When it comes time for one of these ‘big insurance companies’ to divy up their Treasures. “Will they be deemed to big to fail and need “bailed out” too?”

My experiences and thoughts on the subj:…I believe the Earth is warming based on my personal experiences growing up and living in Missouri: less snow more ice, droughts, tornadoes, sheer winds, snow melts in days not months….I believe mankind will border on keeping its head stuck in the sand until its too late….and if we don’t get it figured out we do not deserve to continue living. The Xtians call it: Reaping what you Sow. What Future do you want for your Kids?